[CCWG-ACCT] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017

Fri Sep 8 22:15:08 UTC 2017

Clever turn o phrase, Avri!    But it’s just not meaningful to recommend that AC/SO’s simply “consider” a Good Practice.  If that’s all we are recommending, why bother with recommended practices at all.

From: avri doria <avri at apc.org<mailto:avri at apc.org>>
Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 4:10 PM
To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>, "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017

Hi,

Yes, one implements a program. A group considering and recording the
consideration is an action/activity that would need to be implemented.

The suggestion here is that formal consideration by a group of term
limits is a good practice.

It is not a question of considering implementation, it is about
implementing consideration.

Avri

On 08-Sep-17 15:46, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Avri — we are recommending Good Practices that the group believes are
worth implementing (if applicable).

None of the other 28 Good Practices suggest to “consider” something to
do.   All are suggestive that implementation is a good practice, and
all our recommendations imply that AC/SO/Groups should therefore
“consider" implementation.

Steve

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf
of avri doria <avri at apc.org<mailto:avri at apc.org> <mailto:avri at apc.org>>
Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 3:32 PM
To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by
11-Sep-2017

Hi,

My understanding was that the statement being discussed was whether they
should consider term limits.

I think this is an important difference.  And I think that strengthening
the statement into something that is easier to disagree with, is
unfortunate.

I think the act of considering the need for term limits is all that is
required.  You are right, it is not best for all.  But considering
whether to impose them or not is a good practice as it gives those who
hold positions without term limits who may see no reason for term
limits, to be challenged by those out of power who may think they are
needed. At this point there is no recommendation that all SOAC/AG/C
consider term limits so those who want them may be flat out of luck.

I suggest that we avoid change the wording of the recommendation and
that we support the recommendation that all entities consider whether
they need term limits or not.

I personally believe that yes, we should add the consideration of terms
limits as a good practice.

avri

On 08-Sep-17 09:27, Steve DelBianco wrote:

     As discussed on our SOAC team call yesterday, we are nearly finished
     with our public comment responses
     <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uAjMUtnaigi5-zSMGmmIbvFNcPxGQC0cMB_a7XskQfI/edit#gid=639129231>
     and updated recommendation
     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sT6SscZLT7VK2rVFOMPaiK1Qd8vlVLkm0boRX7I8ru0/edit#>
     to the CCWG.

     One remaining question is whether to add an additional Good Practice
     to the 28 we already have in our report.

     The purpose of this email is to hear from all members of
     SOAC-Accountability as to whether our report should include this new
     proposed Good Practice:

          *An AC/SO/Group that elects its officers should impose term
     limits. *

     Note that this proposed Good Practice would _only_ apply to
     AC/SO/Groups that have elections.  And as with all of our Good
     Practices, we describe applicability in our Executive Summary:

          In Track 1 we recommend 29 Good Practices that each SO/AC/Group
          should implement, to the extent these practices are
     applicable and
          an improvement over present practices.  We do not recommend that
          implementation of these practices be required. Nor do we
     recommend
          any changes to the ICANN bylaws.  We do recommend that
     Operational
          Standards for periodic Organizational Reviews conducted by ICANN
          could include an assessment of Good Practices implementation in
          the AC/SO subject to the review.

     And we include this caveat on page 8:

           "AC/SO/Groups are only expected to implement Good Practices to
          the extent that these practices are applicable and an improvement
          over present practices, in the view of AC/SO/Group participants.
           Again, we do not recommend that implementation of these
     practices
          be required by AC/SO/Groups.”

     Please reply to all by 11-Sep with your view on whether we should add
     Term Limits as a Good Practice.

     _______________________________________________
     Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
     Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170908/8efd342c/attachment.html>